Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Film. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Film

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choorian (film franchise)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia does not generally allow articles for series that only have two pieces of media. ★Trekker (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Student World Impact Film Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have strong belief that this subject does not meet the notability criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NGO. This article relies excessively on the use of primary sources, and when searched up, I can only see some reliable/secondary sources, and even then they are not independent of the subject (e.g interviews with the founder). WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and New Jersey. WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of great importance. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no longer any point in keeping this one. desmay (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. The discussion there impacts this discussion as well. - jc37 09:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important list. An editor from Mars (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I voted Keep on List of films in the public domain in the United States. These lists are invaluable for a base of information checking and completing filmography articles and lists, etc. Especially if we are creating a table of works list for any bio article. They are also helpful in pointing us towards other information we might need when we create an article. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hardly indiscriminate; this is a highly defined list and passes WP:NLIST as the subjects are discussed as a group in Hurst, Rossen, Kehr and other sources in the article. Also passes WP:LISTPURP (and is useful to boot). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason has been given why INDISCRIMINATE should apply here. It's a list of films that are 1) animated and 2) in the public domain in the United States. That is very specific. Cortador (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced, helps anyone looking to download such films that are now in the public domain. I understand that now things will regularly drop into the public domain, but this would likely be the first place someone would look for a particular film. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. A rename can be handled at editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 00:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in the public domain in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most American films are entered in the public domain from 2019 or later, but other non-US films, including Indian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. are also public domain. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've done a great many filmography articles and lists. Some are stand-alone lists, and some are imbedded in an actor's article. This particular list is very helpful in checking and completing those lists. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These films that are public domain in the United States are not otherwise tracked on Wikipedia (for example, by a Category or template); this article remains the only effective mechanism on Wikipedia to find such films and their associated articles. In addition, the research in this article is considerably more reliable and well-referenced than any other non-wikipedia reference I have found on the same topic. 72.81.222.194 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important. Maybe split the silent films, b&w vs color films. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Films in the public domain in the United States and delete the actual list as far too inadequate. Every film before 1930 is now in the public domain, according to the article, and the list would grow ever longer with each passing year. This would be better handled by adding categories such as ~~Category:1920s American films, Category:1920s French films,~~ Category:1921 films, etc., as well as films that were not renewed, to a new film subcategory of Category:Public domain in the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have the time to look at this further but the keep votes above make me lean in favor of deletion. The fact that coverage of these films as a group only exists as Wikipedia would suggest this list fails WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~Nearly~~ (All of them actually) all of this films are Blue Linked passes WP:CSC. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and remove the list, per Clarityfiend's suggestion. It's important to note that although the public domain will get larger, this list won't. It'll get shorter until it's completely redundant to Category:Films by year. There are thousands of films in the public domain in the U.S. because they were published before 1930, but this list only covers a smaller and smaller set of films that entered the public domain because they didn't follow requirements around publication and registration. So for example, Hyperbolick's suggestion of splitting off the silent films doesn't make sense because every work from the silent era has already been removed. The premise for this article is at odds with WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and it needs to be reworked. hinnk (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List is useful, although some of Clarityfiend's points above are worth addressing. I think that should be possible without actually deleting the list, though. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clarityfiend's suggestion of a new film subcategory of Category:Public domain in the United States would be welcome, but a single category would not track the specific reasons for each film's public domain status as the notes in this list currently do. 2601:14D:4082:5730:2107:A94A:E21:9C43 (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No reason there couldn't be multiple sub-subcategories. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this !vote is just to see the article kept. Then an RM could be done if it makes sense to change the name of the article, but that is an entirely separate matter. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tango Bar (2024 film)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango Bar (2021 film). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely this is a hoax article. As the AFD discussion @Duffbeerforme linked above, it had a deletion back in 2021 but with has been put back up only with 2024 replacing the 2021 in it's title. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think IMDB got fooled by this article. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was in production in 2021 and finally got released in 2024 which explains the two different dates. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see in Spanish, given the coverage and awards/nominations, I consider a redirect (and merge) to List of Venezuelan films#2020s would seem appropriate, at least.-Mushy Yank. 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep César Bolívar working on it, distribution by Gran Cine, and winning an award at ELCO, probably places it as one of the bigger Venezuelan films of the last few years, especially among internal productions. I can look for more sources but, besides the COI, there doesn't seem to be a reason to delete. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Autumns in Paris

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons you have just said. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production and screenings received a lot of coverage in Spanish...@Kingsif:, if you have time, could you have a look at this and, maybe, if it's not asking too much, the associated pages (another film, a festival and the actor mentioned above)? Thanks a lot!-Mushy Yank. 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage and awards/nominations, a redirect to List of Venezuelan films (listed there in 2020) would seem appropriate, at least. -Mushy Yank. 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent chance that at least this film is suitable for an article, based on a very quick search, but then looking at the articles all made by quite an obvious COI user, we may be in WP:TNT territory in terms of what content is/should be usable. I can have a better look later but am kinda swamped for a few days. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having looked in Spanish, most sources are Venezuelan film organisations (Gran Cine, Trasnocho Cultural, government) that kinda just mention its existence. However, there's a few international sources about screenings and festivals, and the cast (Cervantes Institute, La Vanguardia). Small coverage, but RS and more than 'look we made this'. The film also got a wide cinema release in Venezuela - which would be no small feat any time after 2014, but is frankly outstanding that it happened in 2020. (El Estímulo, El Universal). Possibly the best source to start the article afresh with might be this Unión Radio piece (and interview?) about it. I don't think El Carabobeño is generally accepted as RS, but it has an article about the film being adapted from Villarroel's book, itself based on a true story, that could be useful if acceptable. Also to note, most of the awards listed on its IMDb are absolute duds, and as such the (probably quite evident anyway) Venezuelan government propaganda media, just listing off how many global awards this thing got, should be avoided. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources added to the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caracas Ibero-American Film Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo for non notable festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of announcements, PR and listings but not independent coverage. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NEVENT. Svartner (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art Arena

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a "planned" museum has been around since 2010. While I'm not sure what the status of the museum is the only live source I could find about it was on the Roland Collection website. I don't see how this meets the WP:GNG in any way. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and England. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, a "planned" museum that never appears to have happened, almost 20 yrs ago. PROMO gone bad, delete this. I see no current (or any) links to this project. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems this article was created as advance-promo for a museum that never was built. I'm not finding anything to support its notability. The one recent "source" in Ahmedabad Mirror written by "Agency" seems like more PR promo for the person who proposed the unbuilt museum; mentioning the "museum" in a single sentence. It's a very buggy/spammy site, rife with pop-up windows for various products and medical "cures". It is not significant coverage and seems unreliable. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's certainly possible for a planned museum to achieve notability, but I cannot identify ORG level coverage, nor a suitable ATD. Star Mississippi 01:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satelli D'Or Film Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suspected WP:HOAX that has been on Wikipedia for sixteen years. I could find no evidence of the existence of this film festival (or the founder) online or in newspaper archives. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is certainly hoax material. No results on Newspapers.com for 'Satelli D'Or' (using TWL), and Ancestry.com only came back with one result for an Ernest Satelli (which seems to be a person named Ernest Santell who died in 1992 in Illinois, not 1989 as the article states). Furthermore, no actual substance of the Satelli D'Or article has been written since the 2009 edits by users Maxzilla2005 and Doctorannabelle (a combined 16 edits on Wikipedia, 15 of which are on the Satelli D'Or), and in my eyes cements the existence of the hoax. Ré union! 18:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely nothing found about this festival online or its founder. It's completely implausible for a film festival in which M. Night Shyamalan and Marc Forster etc. have featured to not have at least some coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the more I look at it the more I'm convinced this is fake. If this indeed does pass as a hoax, it should be moved to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, which would make it the 22nd longest-lived hoax on Wikipedia. Ré union! 19:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly should be deleted as it has no sourcing and none can be found. It seems likely it is a hoax. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. The closest I could find on Newspapers.com to the name Ernest Satelli was Ernest Batelli (Sr and Jr), who lived in New Jersey in the 1930s and 40s. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taandob (2025 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Feels way too early for an article. If reports are accurate, the film is supposed to release in two months, but per the cited sources, filming just started less than a week ago. Right now, there's nothing substantial just the usual production updates, cast announcements, and filming news. No real depth. Wikipedia isn't meant to track every step of a film's production. An article makes sense when there's more to say something beyond just "this movie is happening." Either once most of the film is shot and there's sufficient independent coverage with real substance, or after release if it gets real critical attention. Until then, better to draftify. Junbeesh (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Junbeesh (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Unless principal photography starts and it gets enough coverage, move it and keep it in Draftspace. ^Wiinter_U 16:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Principal photography has started. -Mushy Yank. 17:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raihan_Rafi#Films: for now and expand back into an article when more coverage exists but filming has started, notable cast (see https://images.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/shooting-underway-taandob-producer-addresses-casting-rumours-3858741, for example) so, opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 17:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as there are less coverage about the subject. When the article can be expanded enough, we can move the draft in the main space. Mehedi Abedin 21:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, but don't delete Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article is kept or in this case likely to be draftified, kindly remove the "2025 film" disambiguator as it is completely unnessesary. Thanks and No Opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an ATD. BOVINEBOY2008 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How It Should Have Ended

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of these sources are either from unreliable websites like youtube, twitter and facebook, or from the source itself, fails GNG. TzarN64 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion here may hinge on the content of the first three sources in the article which are books that I cannot access at the moment. There is occasional coverage in national newspapers for some videos [1] that could be included in the article. There is persistent coverage on websites like Screen Rant which is considered somewhat reliable excluding info of living persons per WP:RSP. In-depth has been hard to find with relatively quick search, but it may be buried among routine coverage of individual videos. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About coverage on Screen Rant as it relates to notablity for our purposes here, I will say this: Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received a Streamy award for Best Animated web series. https://www.streamys.org/nominees-winners/2010-nominees/ Coverage abounds. Cleanup might be necessary. -Mushy Yank. 12:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep After spending more time searching, I am leaning keep for How It Should Have Ended. It has received some attention by academics studying youtube channels and was noted for having deep community engagement (i.e. many community members contributing to subtitle translation): [2] (unfortunately source may be paywalled for most users). There are the awards that have been noted. When it comes to animation/comic movies, I think having Stan Lee cameo in your work (and ask you animate his own how it should have ended episode) also suggests notability, though I recognize this is an unorthodox reason. The mentions in books sources are also suggestive of notability as the channel is receiving some academic attention. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read full passages to better establish notability/sigcov.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Anonrfjwhuikdzz. Paper thin keep for me. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable web series. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Aditi Saigal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[1] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No film title, just started filming, and anticipated release date in 2027. Nothing notable about the production and references are all churnalism, routine, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I do not see a redirect as an option as it has twice been removed based on the history. CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is premature as the film is still in the early stages of production and lacks a confirmed title. The current sources primarily offer routine production updates and do not demonstrate the significant notability required for a standalone article at this stage. Creating a full article now risks violating WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, as details about the film are likely to evolve. While the involvement of notable figures is acknowledged, Wikipedia articles require more than just anticipation to warrant inclusion. Deletion is recommended until the film progresses further, has a definitive title, and receives substantial coverage establishing its notability.Aditi's Voice (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: filming has started; notable cast, crew and director; a lot of coverage about production. At worst, redirect (or draftify). Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 15:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to SSMB29, the film's tentative title. It is noteworthy that the director's previous film's tentative title was so famous that it became the actual title, which is likely not the case for this film however. DareshMohan (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Sources are mostly about leaked scene and others are on casting, and other routine news. Not notable yet. I was leaning to vote draftify but very likely the page will be moved back again right away to mainspace unless an administrator can put a move lock to it. If a move lock can be done, please let me know and I can change my vote to draftify. RangersRus (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditi's Voice:, you need to bold your vote. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The title should not be the criteria to redirect or delete, as it has begun filming, is notable and has wide media coverage. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 5:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no amount of puffery about upcoming movies will ever make them notable until release. For one thing it isn't unknown for projects to be cancelled in post. For another, it unnecessary as if the upcoming movie is as good as the editors writing this stuff say it is then it will quickly be shown to be notable once it is finished. WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL JMWt (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The article relies heavily on WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it doesn't even pass WP:GNG. I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON - the notability may come in time, but for now it's too early to tell.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this article not be draftified? I think the information currently on the page is substantial enough for that, just until filming or something has started. jolielover♥talk 07:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Filming has started, I repeat: filming has started.https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/priyanka-chopra-drops-glimpse-of-nyc-moments-ft-nick-jonas-daughter-malti-resumes-ssmb-29-shoot-in-hyderabad-article-119553319 -Mushy Yank. 21:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of filming, please see WP:NFF which states, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." How is the production notable?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budget, coverage, cast, etc. -Mushy Yank. 04:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the notability guideline that states notability is based on budget, cast, coverage, etc.? I must have missed it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. -Mushy Yank. 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong link. -Mushy Yank. 17:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...guys, really? Toadspike [Talk] 21:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this has several claims to notability already, and it seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources. As for NEWSORGINDIA, some pieces don't have bylines, but some do [3], and some are not even Indian [4]. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that a film that has begun shooting with a notable director, notable producer, and notable cast is notable. Add to that the fact that the director's last project was RRR, the most successful Indian film of all time by several metrics, and that line of argument becomes very reasonable. I could support draftifying until release, but the draft will be at risk of deletion every six months – when we expect this to come out in two years, that's just creating an unnecessary headache. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:HAMMER. Once the film is released, that will be the time to have an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may argue that the sources we have don't show that film is notable right now, but that essay doesn't seem to apply; we have a lot more than "rumors posted to message boards, blogs, or Facebook" right now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. and rename to Sex Phone and the Girl Next Door which I will do momentarily. Star Mississippi 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexphone & the Lonely Wave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film does not satisfy WP:NFILM. The article itself has no sources and a Google search only yields database websites and pirated copies of the film. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to List of Thai films#2003~~: released at a time when online sources were not the rule - sources https://movie.kapook.com/view237630.html (other equivalent lists exist); https://entertainment.trueid.net/detail/y2w5w99dOmGV https://www.siamzone.com/movie/m/1339 Alt title: The Girl Next Door -Mushy Yank. 10:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Keep, thanks, @Paul 012:.-Mushy Yank. 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rename to Sex Phone and the Girl Next Door, which appears to be the modern release title. A major feature film in its day. Still receiving coverage two decades later in the TrueID piece linked above by Mushy Yank, which discusses the film and its real-life performance, as well as review websites Khobsanam[5] and Kodungmovie[6]. Google Books shows it got a full page review in the Siam Rath Weekly Review[7]. Further offline sources entirely likely to exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Paul 12, including coverage ten years after the film's release, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recently created article. Neeeds some good sources. It is better in draftspace, than mainspace for the time being. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramos1990, it seems you're arguing for draftifying/incubation rather than deletion? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography. Star Mississippi 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eluka Majaka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable director (his 75th film) and notable cast, so why are there no reliable reviews? A search in Telugu (or English for that matter) surprisingly yields nothing [8]. No reliable reviews or other reliable sources apart from the single sources already on the article. The old sources that used to be on the article and a WP:BEFORE yielded: [9] [10] [11] [12]. This is not a pre-2010 film, it is a 2016 film, hence it needs more sources.

Note several films by the same director lack articles including his immediate previous film (see the director's filmography). Note: I support a redirect to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography, where the same source about this film is also there. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable cast+crew+director; coverage about production including a bylined article in The Hindu. Seems to meet WP:GNG. ~~But meets WP:NFIC as it was noted as a shift in Rao's career, marking the peak of his involvement in Kannada-language productions,~~ https://ntvtelugu.com/movie-news/director-relangi-narasimha-rao-birthday-special-62551.html ~~[it is not his first not remade-in-Kannada non-Telugu film?]~~ ~~Would clutter up the director's bio.~~ 123Telugu should imv be accepted as a source to expand reception (although maybe not to base notability upon). Redirect indeed warranted. Very opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 11:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't his first Telugu film not to be remade in Kannada or that wasn't a remake.

He has three other such films like that:

Apparao Ki Oka Nela Thappindi (2001)
Preminchukunnam Pelliki Randi (2004)
Appu Chesi Pappu Koodu (2008)
Oo Antava Maava Oo Ooo Antava Maavaa (2023) DareshMohan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will amend my comment (that was written in a very confusing way, on top of this). -Mushy Yank. 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography or Delete. Fails WP:NFILM with no significant coverage, in multiple reliable sources and no multiple critical reviews needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kattumaram (film)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable. concerns regarding notability and verifiability, as outlined in Wikipedia's content policies. For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. While Kattumaram has been reviewed by several outlets, the depth and prominence of this coverage are limited. For instance, Asian Movie Pulse provides a review that, although positive, does not constitute the extensive coverage required to establish notability. Similarly, BollySpice.com offers a review, but its reach and influence are not substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, the film's listing on platforms like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which include brief synopses and user-generated content, do not serve as independent, reliable sources for establishing notability. Furthermore, the article's reliance on such sources may violate Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which mandates that information be backed by reputable, third-party publications. Without substantial, independent coverage, the article does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films, making it a candidate for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Asian Movie Pulse is generally accepted for notability and Now Toronto seems reliable enough. All in all, notability seems sufficient for a stand-alone page; a redirect is warranted, absolutely (released, verifiable, notable director+actor, coverage) -Mushy Yank. 10:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+Technically a WP:NFILM pass for another reason: screened >5 years after release (released in June 2019) https://birminghamindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and https://londonindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and the Global Indian stories source seems acceptable too.-Mushy Yank. 12:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources." Notability is not one-size-fits-all. This is a film and there are thousands of films produced globally that do not get to be reviewed by mainstream media (The New York Times, The Guardian, Variety, etc.). More often than not, the only reviews for a film will be found in niche publications. There are even film blogs and websites that are considered reliable sources because they are recognized within the film industry. Kattumaram was released in film festivals. It was included in Channel 4's annual Indian cinema showcase in 2020. It was a special screening at Wesleyan University in 2021. Six years after its premiere, it continues to be included in academic film events. Frameline is the Frameline Film Festival and a legitimate, reliable source for films with non-heterosexual subjects. The Hindu is a reliable newspaper. The New Indian Express is an edition of The Indian Express, which is a reliable source. Now Toronto (Now) is a reliable Canadian newspaper. The Times of India article is an interview with the filmmaker and from what I saw in it, is acceptable. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 12:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded the article to improve its notability per WP:HEY. The Times of India articles source that was added is an interview with an actor not the filmmaker and is a passing mention. DareshMohan (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not satisfied with frameline source that has been misrepresented as critical review. That leaves only one review by Now Toronto. If anyone can find one more critical review from reliable sources, please let me know. Interviews are not secondary independent source. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Asian films, it's not easy to find reviews for them outside of Asia-related newspapers, websites, magazines; unless a film is groundbreaking, or becomes a critics darling, or gets word-of-mouth recommendations, or wins awards. Particularly when they are independent films. That's the reality of non-West films. Kattumaram is reviewed in High on Films, Apt613, and Asian Movie Pulse. (RottenTomatoes does take some of High on Films RT1 and AMP RT2 reviews into consideration). It has been included in a handful of academic papers about Indian cinema. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 05:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing the sources but these are still not credible or reliable. Apt613 is a blog. Even High on films, anyone can write for them and per RT is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Debopriyaa Dutta, Pramit Chatterjee, Shikhar Verma, Vassilis Kroustallis. The review is by neither of these approved writers. Asian Movie Pulse is also not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Amarsanaa Battulga, Grace Han, Joshua Polanski, Nathan Sartain, Olivia Popp, Panos Kotzathanasis, Renee Ng, Teresa Vena. The review here too is not from one of these approved critics. RangersRus (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s)". I wrote, "RottenTomatoes does take some of...." (Imo, if RT accepts any film review from the afore-mentioned sources, then other reviews from those same sources should be acceptable.) As for a source being a blog: WP:BLOGS states – "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I suggest you seek input on WT:MOSFILM about film sources, because there are many blogs (such as Film School Rejects, /Film, and Cinapse) that are used as reliable film-related sources in Wikipedia and what is considered a reliable film source is ever evolving. You may find this article from Film Comment a useful learning tool: The Top Film Criticism Sites: An Annotated Blog Roll (yes, it was published many years ago, but many of the blogs listed are still in operation). Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 10:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Asian Movie Pulse and Now Toronto look to be sufficient sources. Alternately a redirect to List of Tamil films of 2019 would be a reasonable ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources appear to be adequote, Asian Movie Pulse and Now Toronto ,London Indian film festival,mittalsouthasiainstitute.harvard.edu Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I20 (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable reviews, all sources are relating to promotional events and OTT release. Sources found in WP:BEFORE: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Only review found was this, which has a dubious reliability [20]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2024 (released + one review, more for verification than notability) [technically a merge] -Mushy Yank. 22:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And @DareshMohan, thanks a lot for linking the findings of your BEFORE. That's very helpful. -Mushy Yank. 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM with no significant coverage and no multiple reviews from reliable sources. DareshMohan yes, maabhoomitimes.com is unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Bollywood film. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched around and couldn’t find any reliable coverage that gives the film real notability. Pridemanty (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions

Medha Sharma (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Trick mode (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)

Templates

[1] ttps://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

[1]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Film

Choorian (film franchise)

Student World Impact Film Festival

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

List of films in the public domain in the United States

Tango Bar (2024 film)

Two Autumns in Paris

Caracas Ibero-American Film Festival

Art Arena

Satelli D'Or Film Festival

Taandob (2025 film)

How It Should Have Ended

Aditi Saigal

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film

Sexphone & the Lonely Wave

Eluka Majaka

Kattumaram (film)

I20 (film)

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates

zproxy.org